New group for Hillary supporters: White Man’s Burden

It’s a new year so maybe it is a time for a new group.

Following Hillary Clinton’s defeat, one of my white male programmer friends (mid-50s now and therefore in the sunset of his career in this young person’s field) posted the following on Facebook:

I would really hate to be gay, or a woman, or a minority, or an American right now.

Of course I couldn’t resist suggesting that he visit Abigail Johnson “to comfort her on the coming tough times?” (Johnson is the richest person in Boston.) I pointed out that “if you want to feel sorry for someone who identifies as ‘gay’, Peter Thiel could perhaps use a hug.” I ended with “This black American also merits your sympathy: http://www.forbes.com/profile/robert-smith/

A few days later, Facebook friends signaled their intention to join the “Million Women March” on Washington, D.C.: “ALL women, femme, trans, gender non-conforming and feminist others are invited to march on Washington DC the day following the inauguration of the President elect. ”

What did the Facebookers who plan to participate in the Million Women March have in common? None of them were “women.” As with the above exchange, the passionate Hillary supporters were white males.

In their 50-60 years on the planet, none of these folks had ever written anything about Jews except to criticize the Jews of Israel for being the world’s most horrible and pernicious people. Ever since Trump’s election, however, they’d devoted themselves with passion to protecting American Jewry from Manhattan/LA/South Florida-based Jew-haters (i.e., Trump and Steve Bannon):

Steve Bannon is a known antisemite, as well as an abuser. Wake the fuck up, this is NOT okay!!

URGENT. RED ALARM. This is an EMERGENCY. (I do not use those words lightly.) Donald Trump just appointed an anti-Semitic white supremacist bigot as his chief advisor and strategist.

Steve Bannon, our nation’s foremost antisemite, is now WH senior council.

If you believe that an antisemite, woman-abuser, white supremacist dirtbag like Steve Bannon has no place in the White House, then I suggest calling these representatives and telling them directly.

White supremacist and antisemite Steve Bannon will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor in the Trump White House. This is only the beginning.

[Note that the “abuser” stuff comes out of a lawsuit for custody and child support profits filed against Bannon by a former wife. The allegation reported by newspapers was based on an affidavit from the cash-seeking plaintiff, a not atypical situation in the American family courts.]

A couple of weeks later these same folks had rallied around the idea of creating sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants (it turns out that almost every place in the U.S. is a suitable sanctuary except for their own houses). They had also pledged to register as Muslim in what they said was “Donald Trump’s proposed database of Muslim-Americans.”

I’m thinking that I could harness the power of these good-hearted Facebook friends who want to use their elite educations, $150,000/year incomes, and spare time to help the female, the gay, the non-white, and even the persecuted Jews. My new group will be called “White Man’s Burden.”

Structure: No dues or actions required beyond some virtuous-sounding postings on Facebook.

Thoughts?

College-educated Americans will have fewer children in the Trumpenfuhrer era?

“I’m Terrified of Raising a Boy in Trump’s America” (Elle) is kind of interesting. From the pregnant author:

Perhaps caught up in the momentum of the potentially ceiling-shattering election, I imagined the pea-size embryo was a girl and enjoyed a certain camaraderie as I cast my ballot, pleased about the stories I’d later tire her with about how she and I voted together for the first woman president. … I’d been sure I’d be raising a small woman during a new age of feminism, one where we didn’t even need to call it feminism anymore, one where it was normal for a woman to be the leader of the free world. But that was no longer the case.

It’s not the stereotypical boy things that worry me. … What terrifies me is the idea of raising a boy with good values when a man who represents the male stereotypes we’ve been fighting for generations is in the White House. A man who bullies both men and women in person and on Twitter. This man could dominate our news cycle for the next eight years. I can’t hide his bad behavior from our son.

How can I explain to a little boy that the year he was born, the President of the United States was an admitted sexual predator… How do I explain that grabbing a woman by her genitals is not an acceptable salutation when the man in charge of the country normalized it?

We can talk to him about the man who was in office when he was conceived, a self-declared feminist who made the world a better place for men and women of all colors and stripes.

I’ll start on January 21. I’ll be nearly five months pregnant when I travel to Washington, D.C., to march with thousands of other women who want to show our new president that there will be consequences for bad behavior.

According to Pew Research, “College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%)”. If the author of this piece is typical of the thinking of Hillary supporters, could it be that there will be a further decline in fertility among America’s college-educated citizens?

[Separately, I kind of like the way she spins her personal loss (of the beloved President Obama) and disappointment (about not being ruled by Hillary Clinton) into altruistic concern regarding an unborn child (whose life can be terminated, legally, in Massachusetts for another two months, potentially for cash compensation). It reminds me of that meeting here in the Boston suburbs where adults were supposed to learn how to talk to their children about the election result but instead kept turning the focus onto themselves. Her son won’t even be 8 years old before King Donald I is history. Which of Donald Trump’s points of view did she think might interest a 6- or 7-year-old child?]

Russian Empress Stories to Comfort Hillary Supporters

For my readers who are disappointed that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the recent election, let me devote a few days of weblog to stories about the female rulers of Russia, based on a recent reading of Catherine the Great (Massie).

The first Empress of Russia was Catherine I. She got the job the same way that Hillary had hoped to… by being married to Peter the Great. Unfortunately she died after just two years on the job, aged 43.

The next Empress was Anna:

When the Imperial Council of Russia offered her the throne, the offer was hedged with many conditions: she was not to marry or appoint her successor, and the council was to retain approval over war and peace, levying taxes, spending money, granting estates, and the appointment of all officers over the rank of colonel. Anne accepted these conditions and was crowned in Moscow in the spring of 1730. Then, with the support of the Guards regiments, she tore up the documents she had signed and reestablished the autocracy.

She was succeeded by an infant, Ivan VI, and a regent. This reign was brief:

Elizabeth decided to act. At midnight, she set off for the barracks of the Preobrazhensky Guards. There, she said, “You know whose daughter I am. Follow me!” “We are ready,” shouted the soldiers. “We will kill them all.” “No,” said Elizabeth, “no Russian blood is to be spilled.” Followed by three hundred men, she made her way through a bitterly cold night to the Winter Palace. Walking past the unprotesting palace guards, she led the way to Anna Leopoldovna’s bedroom, where she touched the sleeping regent on the shoulder and said, “Little sister, it is time to rise.” Realizing that all was lost, Anna Leopoldovna begged for mercy for herself and her son. Elizabeth assured her that no harm would come to any member of the Brunswick family. To the nation she announced that she had ascended her father’s throne and that the usurpers had been apprehended and would be charged with having deprived her of her hereditary rights. On November 25, 1741, at three o’clock in the afternoon, Elizabeth reentered the Winter Palace. At thirty-two, the daughter of Peter the Great was the empress of Russia.

Elizabeth ruled for about 20 years and required some harsh measures, including imprisoning her young relative, Ivan VI:

But Elizabeth’s most pressing problem could not be resolved with largesse. A living tsar, Ivan VI, remained in St. Petersburg. He had inherited the throne at the age of two months, he was dethroned at fifteen months, he did not know he was emperor, but he had been anointed, his likeness had been scattered through the country on coins, and prayers had been offered for him in all the churches of Russia. From the beginning, Ivan haunted Elizabeth. She had originally intended to send him abroad with his parents, and, for this reason, she packed the entire Brunswick family off to Riga as a first stage of their journey west. Once they arrived in Riga, however, she had a second thought: perhaps it would be safer to keep her small, dangerous prisoner securely under guard in her own country. The child was removed from his parents and classified as a secret state prisoner, a status he retained for the remaining twenty-two years of his life. He was moved from one prison to another; even then, Elizabeth could not know when an attempt to liberate him and restore him to the throne might be made. Almost immediately, a solution suggested itself: if Ivan was to live and still be rendered permanently harmless, a new heir to the throne must be found, a successor to Elizabeth who would anchor the future of her dynasty and be recognized by the Russian nation and the world. Such an heir, Elizabeth knew by then, would never come from her own body. She had no acknowledged husband; it was late now, and no one suitable would ever be found. Furthermore, in spite of her many years as a carefree voluptuary, she had never known pregnancy. The heir she must have, therefore, must be the child of another woman. And there was such a child: the son of her beloved sister, Anne; the grandson of her revered father, Peter the Great. The heir whom she would bring to Russia, nurture, and proclaim was a fourteen-year-old boy living in Holstein.

The boy would turn out to be Catherine the Great’s husband, deposed and dispatched rather quickly by Catherine. Once on the throne, Catherine would continue to take precautions against Ivan VI:

In March, Peter visited the grim Schlüsselburg Fortress, where the former emperor, Ivan VI, deposed by Empress Elizabeth, had been confined for eighteen years. Peter, certain that his own place on the throne was secure, thought of giving Ivan an easier life, perhaps even of releasing him and appointing him to a military post. The condition of the man he found made these plans impossible. Ivan, now twenty-two, was tall and thin, with hair to his waist. He was illiterate, stammered out disconnected sentences, and was uncertain about his own identity. His clothes were torn and dirty, his bed was a narrow pallet, the air in his prison room was heavy, and the only light came from small, barred windows high up in the wall. When Peter offered to help, Ivan asked whether he could have more fresh air. Peter gave him a silk dressing gown, which the former emperor hid under his pillow. Before leaving the fortress, Peter ordered a house to be built in the courtyard where the prisoner might have more air and more room to walk.

Ivan had been eighteen months old in 1740 when Elizabeth removed him from the throne. When he was four, he was separated from his parents. He had received no formal education but in childhood had been taught the Russian alphabet by a priest. Now twenty-four, he had spent eighteen years in solitary confinement in an isolated cell in the Schlüsselburg Fortress, fifty miles up the Neva River from St. Petersburg. Here, designated Prisoner No. 1, he was allowed to see no one except his immediate jailers. There were reports that he was aware of his identity; that once, goaded to anger by his guards, he had shouted, “Take care! I am a prince of this empire. I am your sovereign.” A report of this outburst brought a harsh response from Alexander Shuvalov, head of Elizabeth’s Secret Chancellery. “If the prisoner is insubordinate or makes improper statements,” Shuvalov instructed, “you shall put him in irons until he obeys, and if he still resists, he must be beaten with a stick or a whip.” Eventually, the guards reported, “The prisoner is somewhat quieter than before. He no longer tells lies about his identity.” Elizabeth continued to worry and, on the empress’s command, Shuvalov issued a further instruction: if any attempt to free Prisoner No. 1 seemed likely to succeed, Ivan’s jailers were to kill him.

To protect herself, [Catherine] ordered a continuation of the severe conditions in which he had previously been held. Nikita Panin was assigned to oversee Ivan’s imprisonment.

Catherine’s lieutenants ultimately found an excuse to kill Ivan VI and Catherine reigned for decades afterwards, though not as absolutely as one might think:

She rejected torture, traditionally used in extracting confessions, obtaining evidence, and determining guilt in Russia. “The use of torture is contrary to sound judgment and common sense,” she declared. “Humanity itself cries out against it, and demands it to be utterly abolished.” She gave the example of Great Britain, which had prohibited torture “without any sensible inconveniences.”

Years later, Potemkin’s aide, V. S. Popov, elaborated on this by telling the young Emperor Alexander I of a conversation he had once had with the empress: The subject was the unlimited power with which the great Catherine ruled her empire.… I spoke of the surprise I felt at the blind obedience with which her will was fulfilled everywhere, of the eagerness and zeal with which all tried to please her. “It is not as easy as you think,” she replied. “In the first place, my orders would not be carried out unless they were the kind of orders which could be carried out. You know with what prudence and circumspection I act in the promulgation of my laws. I examine the circumstances, I take advice, I consult the enlightened part of the people, and in this way I find out what sort of effect my laws will have. And when I am already convinced in advance of good approval, then I issue my orders, and have the pleasure of observing what you call blind obedience. That is the foundation of unlimited power. But, believe me, they will not obey blindly when orders are not adapted to the opinion of the people.”

More: Read Catherine the Great.

Move to a state where people aren’t upset about the election result?

In response to “How was your weekend?” my neighbors here in Massachusetts are responding with “sad”. Why sad? They’re in mourning for Hillary Clinton’s loss, which they feel personally. Massachusetts residents were already down at #30 (out of 50) in this state-by-state happiness ranking. As the smartest people on the planet we tend to take it personally when we’re not consulted by those in power down in New York and D.C. I don’t see King Donald the First calling up Harvard professors to ask for advice. Thus it is going to be a dark and moody 4-8 years.

Why not move to a state that ranked higher to begin with and one where we don’t think Hillary’s loss will sadden people, either because (a) the majority of voters in that state supported Trump, or (b) voters in that state don’t expect to have substantial influence in a country of 325 million.

Number 1 on the list is Hawaii, which voted for Hillary but is so far from D.C. it is tough to imagine folks there feeling responsible for what the Trumpenfuhrer does.

Number 2 is Alaska, which voted for Trump and where global warming may not be feared. Bonus: no income tax. Double bonus: permanent fund dividend (more of which you’ll get to keep under Trump’s proposed lower federal income tax rates).

Number 3 is Montana, another Trump state. Colorado is #4 and the vote was narrowly divided. Perhaps stay away from Boulder and people will be in a good mood?

Wyoming has no state income tax, supported Trump, and was #5 in happiness prior to the election. Texas and Florida have no state income tax, rank #11 and #12, and voted for Trump.

What do folks think? If the post-election malaise will be prolonged for Hillary Clinton supporters, why not move away from it to a state that ranked higher in happiness to begin with? Why choose to live around the grumpy?

[Be sure to check Real World Divorce before moving! The alimony and child support plaintiff who gets $10 million in Massachusetts would be entitled to $400,000 in Texas. The custody plaintiff entitled to sole custody (“winner parent” status) in New York would be forced into shared 50/50 parenting in Alaska.]

My Dolphin Joke was NOT FUNNY?

A few days ago I posted a three-second video on Facebook (equivalent YouTube version) with the following caption: We met this dolphin in Sarasota. He said that he voted for Trump because he is enthusiastic about global warming and sea level rise. Why, we asked? “I want to move into a third floor condo in Miami,” he replied.

My Facebook friends, nearly all of whom supported Hillary Clinton, did not think this was funny! Is that because (a) it is in fact not funny, (b) they have a poor sense of humor, or (c) they’re still using up all of their emotions mourning the loss of President Hillary?

[Note that, as an engineer, I think that any solution to problems caused by atmospheric CO2 will be engineering and infrastructure solutions. The U.S. is a shrinking percentage of global CO2 output. We tend to be led by politicians with no technical or scientific background (see Why would anyone expect the U.S. to be a leader in dealing with CO2 emissions, climate change, etc.?).  We are no longer great at engineering and we’re terrible at building infrastructure (see U.S. versus German infrastructure spending and results and High-speed Rail in California versus China). If the Earth does need to be saved from humans, I think that it will be Chinese and Germans who do the saving and therefore the American public’s choice of a president is not relevant.]

Best asphalt shingles?

Some choices are even tougher than Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump…

We’re using a conventional wood-frame house as a combination of office and home. It was built in the late 1960s with perhaps 10 inches of fiberglass between the rafters. There are cathedral ceilings everywhere, hence no possibility of insulating an attic (no attic! Also no basement; architects back then were smart enough to foresee that America would become less cluttered and there would be no need to store anything). The basic shape of the house is the same as a double-wide trailer home. (But of course Zillow estimates the value at about $1 million due to the proximity to Boston and the general impracticality of building anything new in Massachusetts.)

A local architect suggested putting nail-base foam panels on top of the existing roof deck. This gives 3.5 inches of foam and and then another 0.5″ of OSB to which shingles can be nailed. Apparently this is a fairly common retrofit insulation technique for old-yet-modern-style houses like this one. There would be some foam injected into any gaps between the panels.

We then have a choice of whether to do ice-and-water shield over the entire roof or just the lower 6′. The advantage of not doing the whole thing is that maybe water vapor would have a better chance to escape?

On top of the ice-and-water shield we then have to pick shingles. This is where I am hoping to get answers from readers! Consumer Reports tested shingles in 2009 and found that high-end Owens Corning Berkshire Collection and CertainTeed Grand Manor were the best (strongest). Owens Corning Oakridge and CertainTeed Landmark were pretty good at about one third the price. The roof is only about 3750 square feet including budgeted waste, so I don’t think that the shingle price difference will be that large in the overall context of the project.

What do folks who’ve been through this recently have to say? How did you choose a shingle and what did you choose?

One more idea: Should we try to hold out for another year and get the Tesla solar energy tiles? It looks like a good product, but I wonder if it will be shipped within my lifetime. Also you probably wouldn’t want to do the north side of your house with these, right? So then you are supposed to find matching non-solar shingles for the north side?

[Note that this continues the theme of why you want to rent rather than buy; the brain of the homeowner is entirely filled up with boring stuff.]

How to get a bricks-and-mortar bachelor’s degree without paying U.S. prices

Occasionally the New York Times does run a story about something other than the achievements of Hillary Clinton or personified evil (a.ka. “Donald Trump.”). Their “A Guide to Getting a Bachelor’s Abroad” could save an American family massive amounts of money.

[One thing that the Times doesn’t cover are the financial implications of a popular activity of college students: having sex. A female student who gets pregnant in a Common Law jurisdiction, such as the U.K. or Australia, could find herself with a cashflow that far exceeds what she could expect to earn from working with that college degree. By contrast, if she has sex with a rich German or Dane in Germany or Denmark, she will get paid less than if she’d had sex with a middle-income American. For male students, the financial consequences of a one-night sexual encounter in the Civil law jurisdictions are limited, whereas in the U.K. they could be life-changing. See the International chapter of Real World Divorce for a country-by-country analysis.]

My election prediction: 55/45 popular vote split between Hillary and Trump

In April 2015 I predicted a Hillary Clinton victory. That posting suggested a 54:45 ratio between Hillary votes and votes for any Republican. It has been 1.5 years. We know who the Republican challenger is. What’s my prediction now? I’m going to bump this up to 55:45 for Hillary:Trump votes (not 55:45 total because at least some people will vote for Gary Johnson, for example).

Additional support for my theory is that Hugo Chavez prevailed over his opponent by approximately 55:45 in the 2012 Venezuelan Presidential election. Chavez lays out a blueprint for any would-be successful politician in a democracy (summary of his biography). Hillary and Chavez promise essentially the same things: prosperity without hard work; increased government handouts; soaking the rich with higher taxes; fairness insured by central planning; more parts of the economy controlled by the government or centrally directed. I don’t think that there is a significant difference between Americans and Venezuelans. So it seems safe to assume that approximately the same number of Venezuelans who were persuaded by Chavez will be persuaded by Hillary.

That’s my prediction! Let’s circle back on Wednesday morning to see who got closest!

Readers: What’s your prediction of the ratio of popular votes between Hillary and Trump? First prize for getting it right (not just with a number but also an explanation for the prediction): I buy lunch next time we’re both in the same city. Second prize: two lunches with me!

Related:

Econ 101 not popular in Las Vegas or New York

“N.F.L. Stadium in Las Vegas May Be an Ego Boost, but Not an Economic One” (nytimes) is interesting for what it reveals about Americans and their understanding of economics. The basic idea approved by state politicians is somewhat similar to Hillary Clinton’s economic plan. Taxes will be raised (in this case on hotel stays; for “the rich” in Hillary’s case) but the people paying the higher tax won’t change their behavior. So there will be free money coming from tourists and that will be used to fund most of the stadium and the roads to feed the stadium. The “business” journalist at the New York Times doesn’t ask “Well, if this is free money, why not spend it on something else?” nor “Won’t there be a reduction in hotel stays, just like if you tax cigarettes people smoke fewer packs?” Neither do the 74 commenters.

[One unarguable fact is that the football players, if they move from Oakland, will reduce their radar cross-section when being targeted by child support plaintiffs. California offers unlimited profits for a pregnancy resulting from a one-night encounter; Nevada caps the revenue yield from a child at $13,000 per year. There could still be venue litigation following out-of-state sex.]

Related:

Scott Adams shows how easy it is to miscalculate tax rates

Scott Adams posted yesterday about how Hillary Clinton’s proposed extension of the current tax regime will result in a tax rate of 75 percent. He figures that a 50 percent income tax and then a 50 percent estate tax rate will result in the government getting 75 percent of marginal earnings. (Note that Adams lives in California, where a state estate tax is prohibited by the constitution. The estate tax rate would be higher for someone who lived in Massachusetts or New York, for example.)

Adams is obviously a smart guy so this posting shows how easy it is for citizens to miscalculate their true tax rates. A Harvard economics professor, Gregory Mankiw, made a more thorough attempt in the New York Times. He came up with a 90-percent rate by including taxes on earnings from investing the money between earning and dying. (Adams’s 75-percent figure would still be incorrect assuming that the money were stuffed under a mattress because government-generated inflation would in that case tax the value away gradually.)

[Note that Hillary herself skips out on both income and estate taxes for most of her compensation. If, in return for access or a favor, someone gives money to the Clinton Foundation via this web page, her daughter Chelsea can spend that money chartering a Gulfstream 20 years from now and there will be no taxes at all (assuming that Chelsea can come up with a Foundation-related reason why she needed to fly to Europe).]